Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Accused of Flip-Flopping on Union Aid

By Matthew Mosk
Aides to Sen. Hillary Clinton today accused rival Sen. Barack Obama of flip-flopping because of union efforts in Ohio on his behalf.

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said the United Food and Commercial Workers, which endorsed Obama earlier this month, was planning television ads supporting him. Another union, the Service Employees International Union, reported spending more than $900,000 in recent days to pay for phone banking and direct mail supporting Obama.

Wolfson said Obama complained bitterly about union efforts on behalf of former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) in Iowa, but seems content to accept the support in Ohio.

"The Clinton campaign applauds and supports involvement of unions in the process," Wolfson said, noting that Clinton has been a major beneficiary of labor spending during the primaries. "We are concerned about Senator Obama's flip-flopping on outside political spending."

Obama did raise concerns about outside groups during the Iowa contest, although his complaint was rooted in the departure of a senior Edwards adviser who then oversaw union work on the candidate's behalf, said Bill Burton, Obama's campaign spokesman. Union spending is permitted, but it cannot be coordinated with the campaign.

Burton declined to respond to Wolfson's complaint.

By Post Editor  |  February 24, 2008; 5:27 PM ET
Categories:  B_Blog , Hillary Rodham Clinton  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: In R.I., Clinton Adopts a Mocking Tone
Next: Newly Engaged in a Three-Front War

Comments

OBAMA HAS TIES WITH HELPING REZKO THE SLUM LORD, SO WHAT IF HILLARY REPRESENTED A RAPIST SHE WAS HIS LAWYER Obama's NAFTA double-talk confirmed: CTV - Blogrunner

Posted by: JBRACALE | March 3, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm seems to me that yesterday it was shown that Hillary had more flip flops than Obama had. And they named them. Get your facts straight Hillarious Hillary fans. Has our dear Miss Hillary flip flopped on the war...nafta...and Obama hasnt flip flopped on that issue. Hillary is great at distorting what Obama says or does. She is like a child waiting to say "Waaaa thats not fair". As far as the rape case...heck think everyobe knows Hillary would do whatever she has to to win ...whether it be at the expense of a child or the country.

Posted by: Webster51 | February 27, 2008 12:50 AM | Report abuse

JamericanPrincess - You realize that if the votes from Florida and Michigan are not counted, the voters from those states will be disenfranchised. The fact that the Obama campaign wants to disenfranchise the voters from those two states simply because the math favors him if their votes is not counted is wrong.

The best compromise for this situation without disenfranchising the voters from both of those states is to punish the Democratic leaders of those states by taking a portion or part of the Super Delegate Votes that are allotted to those states. That way the the DNC can save face by still imposing a punishment for those states for breaking the rules (even though Florida broke the rules because of the Republican Governor, not the Democratic leaders).

If the votes from Florida and Michigan are not counted from the Americans that reside in those states, then it will be looked upon that Barack Obama stole this election with the help of the DNC.

Posted by: InSearchofTruth | February 26, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Am I reading this right? Are these accusations from the same Hillary Clinton who wishes to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan against party rules? Simply because the maths favours her campaign and stuff the agreement made with the Democratic National Committee?

It may be distasteful, but Hillary did her job as a public defender and you dont get to choose your clients. She mounted the best possible defence in difficult circumstances, so I have no issue with her defence of an alleged rapist. I am no Hillary supporter, yet fair is fair.

Isn't the Clinton campaign tired of pointing out Obama's flip-flops? As the debate in Texas showed, HRC needs to take the plagiarism log out of her own eye before she can see Obama's faults clearly. This is the era of instant internet information - you have to be very, very sure that you have no issues of your own before you 'go negative' on your opponent. Why dont the voters like me? she asks. Because you are wasting time focusing on Obama's sins, instead of stating why you are the best for the job. Mudslinging may be a routine part of politics as usual, but get a clue; people want CHANGE!

Posted by: JamericanPrincess | February 26, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

Additional Barack Obama Flip Flops

1) NAFTA

Barack Obama originally supported NAFTA back in September 2004 per the Associated Press. Now, he's talking like he never supported NAFTA.

Associated Press: Obama said the United States should 'pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.' "Obama said the United State should continue to work with the World Trade Organization and pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement." [AP, 9/8/04]

Decatur Herald & Review: 'Obama said the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA.' "While some people believe NAFTA has been good for U.S. farmers, the trade results could have been better, Keyes said. NAFTA negotiators said the United States might lose manufacturing jobs but would become a service economy, but now those service jobs also are being exported, he said. Obama said the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA. He said, at the same time, there must be recognition that the global economy has shifted, and the United States is no longer the dominant economy. 'We have competition in world trade,' Obama said. 'When China devalues its currency 40 percent, we need to bring a complaint before the WTO just as other nations complain about us. If we are to be competitive over the long term, we need free trade but also fair trade." [Decatur Herald & Review, 9/9/04]

2) Meeting with foreign leaders of rogue nations without "pre-conditions."

Let's not forget that Barack Obama said he would meet with leaders of rogue nations without preconditions. However, in the last debate in Texas, he flip flopped by "borrowing" Hillary's stance, except he replaced the word "preconditions" with "preparation."

Besides those two flip flops and the 4-5 flip flops already posted on this board, there is also the unconstitutional legislation, "The Global Povery Act" that he has sponsored which would take away the constitutional power of the purse from Congress and give it to the United Nations with regards to foreign aid. Such legislation is unconstitutional and would be the beginning of the United States handing over its sovereignty to the United Nations. The fact is that Barack Obama would sponsor such legislation is very disturbing. I hope voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas take note of this before they vote.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/

Posted by: InSearchofTruth | February 26, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

According to the Washington Post Fact Checker NOT HILLARY CLINTON:
Public Financing "Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. His spokesman now says that he never gave such a pledge, and Obama himself has attached several conditions, including regulating spending by outside groups."

It was not a sit down but a written response on a survey. Obviously, his campaign may feel it would be 'stupid and irresponsible ' because now he has a ton of money he wants to use but would it not be reneging or flip-flipping on his written agreement? NOW, the article did not say anything about Hillary completing the survey so I could not speak to that until I had a reference/source.

If you have another source of data, please cite it so we can have a look. I actually DO care about Obama's positions as long as they are reported by a reasonably independent and reliable news source. I want to be proven wrong.
Posted by: redhiker | February 25, 2008 02:15 AM


THERE HAS BEEN NO FLIP FLOPPING:

1. September 2007. The WaPo article you cite explained that in answers to a questionnaire sent to the various political campaigns in September 2007 by the Midwest Democracy Network, which is attempting to push finance reform, Obama stated:

"In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

2. February 20, 2008. Obama reiterated exactly this position in a letter to USA Today in responses to charges that he was flip flopping:

"In 2007, shortly after I became a candidate for president, I asked the Federal Election Commission to clear any regulatory obstacles to a publicly funded general election in 2008 with real spending limits. The commission did that. But this cannot happen without the agreement of the parties' eventual nominees. As I have said, I will aggressively pursue such an agreement if I am my party's nominee.

I do not expect that a workable, effective agreement will be reached overnight. The campaign-finance laws are complex, and filled with loopholes that can render meaningless any agreement that is not solidly constructed.

As USA TODAY has critically observed, outside groups have come to spend tens of millions of dollars "independently," while the candidates they favor with these ads "wink and nod" at this activity. There is an even greater risk of this runaway, sham independent spending now that the Supreme Court has wrongly opened the door to more of it in a recent decision.

I propose a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits. The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues.

In l996, an agreement on spending limits was reached by Sen. John Kerry and Gov. William Weld in their Massachusetts Senate contest. They agreed to limits on overall and personal spending and on a mechanism to account for outside spending. The agreement did not accomplish all these candidates hoped, but they believe that it made a substantial difference in controlling outside groups as well as their own spending.

We can have such an agreement this year, and it could hold up. I am committed to seeking such an agreement if that commitment is matched by Senator McCain. When the time comes, we will talk and our commitment will be tested.

I will pass that test, and I hope that the Republican nominee passes his."
--------------------------

Obama's position has stayed the same. He wishes to preserve the public financing system. However, that means a meaningful agreement with the other side to (1) use the system and (2) prevent cheating. The whole point public financing is to create a level playing field, not to have one side unilaterally disarm or to receive an unfair advantage due to convention scheduling.

Posted by: mnjam | February 26, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Let us talk about Obama: 1. Obama gave super delegates $698,200 though his PAC Vote Hope toward their campaigns. 2, Obama has 3 registered lobbyist on his '08 payroll ( they represent Wal-Mart, British Petroleum, AFL-CIO) 3. He recieved $ 86,000 from unregistered lobbyist, immediate families member, and state and land lobbyist. (Opensecrets.org.)

Posted by: jpannebecker | February 26, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

ebubuk2004:

Aging white women are still with HRC. Are you one of them?

Posted by: sthorat | February 25, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

The Sopranos: In 1995, a uniformed Secret Service officer swore under oath he saw Maggie Williams--HRC's new manager leave White House lawyer and Hillary confidant Vince Foster's office carrying documents after Foster committed suicide.

Posted by: sthorat | February 25, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

From George Will Column:

The president who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served 10 years in the Senate, then four years as secretary of state (during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent), then was minister to Britain. Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to being ranked as America's worst president. Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow.

Posted by: sthorat | February 25, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

This is called hypocritical. Obama is hypocritical consistently.

Posted by: sangliu | February 25, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

The article is about Obama's flip-flopping and all I see is attacks against Hillary??? Nothing on the fact he flip-flopped just attacking her! That says it all!!!

Posted by: daisy_mom4 | February 25, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

In regards to Senator Clinton defending a child rapist: as others have noted, once you've been appointed to a case, you have no choice but to give the best possible defense. The girl in question (now a grown woman, obviously) has no animus towards Sen. Clinton and says she was just doing her job. Due to that case, Sen. Clinton created the first rape crisis hotline in Arkansas.

Please read the full article from the original source: http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2934440,print.story

Posted by: rhayward | February 25, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

It is almost like clockwork on every board that at some point an Obama supporter will will say something I have reported is racist. Or attack me and never the message. I'm am just providing first hand verifiable information about Barack Obama own racism in Illinois that is ongoing as we speak. Lets talk about the issue of his discrimination. Ask yourself why it would be ok for Barack Obama to sit back and do nothing while any American is denied race discrimination charges against Hormel Foods Inc, UFCW for any reason. And UFCW is helping Barack Obama as reward.

Posted by: Chaos45i | February 25, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

It's very unfortunate that we have people that will make racist comments and post the information for the world to see their ignorance.

Posted by: sjoh905651 | February 25, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Any female democrat obama supporter should be ashamed of themselves. In thirty 32 when you look back and no other woman has made an attempt to run for president, you women who have supported obama can thank yourselves for
pushing the women's movement back at least 50 years or so. There is no other woman in sight that is willing or will be willing to run for this office - in 4, in 8 , in 12 and so on years. This is the only time for woman to stand together and support Hillary and All women. Senator Clinton is a very smart and strong woman and is the best option president for now. Woman unite and support Hillary

Posted by: astridandmika | February 25, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

P.S.2: the teamsters are not latte drinkers

LOL, that's funny, I know SEVERAL members of the teamsters who drink lattes daily! They sell lattes to anyone with money to buy them ya know......

Posted by: margie_pdx | February 25, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Kansas28:

Hillary should have known better, though -- as a woman and child advocate -- as can be seen by the passage of Rape Shield Laws in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Posted by: JakeD | February 25, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

To laplum.....A court appointed attorney is obligated by law to represent the client to his/her best ability. Don't blame HRC for doing her job.

Posted by: Kansas28 | February 25, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, bhatttt, for voting for Ralph Nader.

Posted by: JakeD | February 25, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Chaos yeah Obama has gotten a free pass after being accused of being a Manchurian, Muslim, drug dealing, candidate who attends a black church and hates America and white people.. I would believe it if only he didn't have a loving white mother and grandparents who raised him to be the man he is today..

Posted by: TennGurl | February 25, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Fact check this. I notice "The Fix" on all his pro-Obama cable appearances does not mention anything about this despite me posting this verifible information on his blog as far back as april 2007. Barack Obama has gotton a free pass for to long.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/04/fix_picks_edwards_and_obama_un.html

Posted by: Chaos45i | February 25, 2008 3:30 AM | Report abuse

Obama is a phony and Nader is the best and here is why:

Over the past few months, we've heard a lot of rhetoric about change, hope, courage and experience from Barack Obama and John McCain.

But what about the facts on the ground?

Take a moment to test your civics knowledge in this election year.

Of the following Presidential candidates - Ralph Nader, Barak Obama and John McCain - which one supports a single payer, Canadian style, free choice, Medicare for all health care system?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one supports solar energy and would take nuclear power off the table?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would cut the huge bloated wasteful military budget?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would reverse U.S. Middle East policy in Israel/Palestine, Iraq and Iran?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would launch an aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Who has consistently supported the Palestinian right to nationhood and peaceful settlement?

Answer: Ralph Nader
(Obama has flip-flopped and has now been bought off by the Israel lobby)

Who has never been in cahoots with the likes of Exelon corp. or Rezko?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Who has spent his entire life working for the common people like you and me and has written books to advance the rights of consumers?

Answer: Ralph Nader
(Obama wrote his books about himself while Nader was looking out for us.)

Who has been direct about proclaiming that Bush is a war criminal?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which candidate has opposed all wars, every time?

Answer: Ralph Nader
(Obama supports bombing Pakistan and war against Afghanistan)

Some claim that having a racial minority as president would send a positive message to the world. So which candidate would be best suited to address the troubed areas in the world?

Answer: Once again, Ralph Nader, an Arab-American
(Who better to quell the anti-American sentiment in Arab world than an Arab-American)

Can you guess the others?

What's off the table for Ralph?

The empty rhetoric.

The empty gesture.

The empty politics.

What's on the table?

Taking these issues seriously - all the way to action.

Challenging the corporate domination of our democracy.

Organizing young and old alike, 1,000 in every Congressional district in the country, half a million strong, to take back the country from the corporations.

If Obama or McCain and their parties had seriously and effectively addressed these and other necessities vital to the American people, there would be no need for Ralph Nader to run for President.

Ralph Nader would be happily out of business.

But we've waited so very long - and still - not a blip on the political radar screen on any of these issues.

So in this pivotal election year, ask yourself this fundamental question:

Which side are you on?

The corporate criminals, the big banks, Wall Street, the credit card companies, the nuclear power industry, the war profiteers, the agribusiness giants, the health insurance industry, the polluters, the drug companies, the unionbusters, Big Oil, the corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans?

Or with people fighting back?

Vote Nader!

Posted by: bhatttt | February 25, 2008 3:14 AM | Report abuse

This is the same UFCW that Barack Obama has been shielding from race discrimination charges. One hand washes the other. I have been reporting all over the internet since before Obama decided to even run that it can be verified that IL. U.S. Senator Presidential Candidate Barack Obama , IL. U.S. Senator Dick Durbin co-chair Obama 2008 are being complicit in allowing the Illinois Department of Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to treat me an American U.S. Hispanic citizen who reported incidents of race discrimination in the state of Illinois in an unequal, biased, & discriminatory manner by preventing me the same race discrimination charges non-Hispanics enjoy as a matter of record and then covering up their conduct. Despite there being ample time for each to respond, redress, and stop the above mentioned serious form of discrimination nothing ,to date, has been done to fairly & fully address, redress,and stop this still ongoing serious form of discrimination which has allowed Hormel Foods Corporation, UFCW, and Target Corporation to not be held accountable for race discrimination against me because I happen to be Hispanic. Inaction ,complicity, & deliberate silence on the part of (for instance but not limited to) Obama and Durbin are responsible for my American civil rights continuing to be violated in Illinois as it relates to this serious form of discrimination in their state of Illinois and for nothing being done to fully & fairly redress and stop this still ongoing form of discrimination against an American who happens to be a Hispanic in Illinois. Hispanics who Know are just showing they will not be willing victims of his "Good Judgement". He has this still going on in Illinois as we speak but Barack Obama tells Hispanic/Latinos nothing about it! I repeat this is verifiable, ongoing and Barack Obama should address it but does not and you can guess why. Included is a link to just one example (If you happen to be a Hispanic in Illinois you have no race) this is on IDHR's own website in the public domain.

http://www.state.il.us/dhr/Orders/2006/Oct_06/Zuniga,%20M.htm

Posted by: Chaos45i | February 25, 2008 3:00 AM | Report abuse

According to the Washington Post Fact Checker NOT HILLARY CLINTON:
Public Financing
"Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. His spokesman now says that he never gave such a pledge, and Obama himself has attached several conditions, including regulating spending by outside groups."

It was not a sit down but a written response on a survey. Obviously, his campaign may feel it would be 'stupid and irresponsible ' because now he has a ton of money he wants to use but would it not be reneging or flip-flipping on his written agreement? NOW, the article did not say anything about Hillary completing the survey so I could not speak to that until I had a reference/source.

If you have another source of data, please cite it so we can have a look. I actually DO care about Obama's positions as long as they are reported by a reasonably independent and reliable news source. I want to be proven wrong.

Posted by: redhiker | February 25, 2008 2:15 AM | Report abuse

Guess it depends on whose campaign spokesperson you beleive. At this point, Barack's has declined to respond. Draw your own conclusions.

Posted by: redhiker | February 25, 2008 1:46 AM | Report abuse

OK - I seriously doubt that many of you Clinton supporters honestly care about the truth about Obama's real position on these campaign finance issues, but I will outline them for you and then you can ignore the facts and go on blindly parroting anything that comes out of Hillary's mouth as you always do.

Hillary is being subtle this time. Rather than telling a blatant lie in her latest effort to smear Senator Obama, she is merely playing a little fast and loose with the facts in this case; telling the truth, but NOT "the whole truth" in yet another effort to distort Senator Obama's position on campaign spending by unions. Senator Obama has never spoken out against the involvement of labor unions in the political process, and that includes financial contributions to the cause. He has a much better reacord of supporting labor unions than Hillary and is very deserving of the most recent union endorsements. The case that Hillary is citing, refers to a high ranking member of John Edwards' campaign staff who left the campaign for the purpose of organizing efforts of a group to campaign on his behalf, spending large amounts of money that was not restricted to the campaign finance rules that the candidates' own spending had to conform to. This was a "527" group, similar to the one Hillary has had set up on behalf of her campaign in just the past week. In Hillary's case, no one from her campaign committee had to quit the campaign in order to run this "527" group. Bill had some of his cronies from his former administration take on that responsibility. Theses groups have withheld the list of contributors to the group which is the biggest reason for Obama's concerns about their unlimited money raising and money spending.

As far as the other issue on accepting public financing, this is more of a half truth that Hillary and McCain are both trying to take advantage of (it's been hard to keep track of which two candidates represent the same party for the past month with Clinton and McCain working so closely in tandem to defeat a common enemy. First of all, what Obama called for was an opportunity to sit down with the Republican nominee and negotiate a fair situation where both parties would agre to accept public financing. Obama nad McCain have never sat down to negotiate any such agreement, and in fact, neither is officially their party's nominee yet. Senator Obama has not said that he would not agree to government financed campaigning in the general election, but he is intelligent enough to understand that he shouldn't give up the huge advanatge he appears to have in campaign financing without negotiating agreements about the total spending during this campaign. It would be stupid and irresponsible for him to limit himself to public financing while the GOP could make use of special interest group spending in order to give them a great advantage against the Democratic candidate who does not use this special interest money. Those on the Democratic side who attack Obama for being smart on this issue are shallow thinkers who haven't thought the issue through and are not promoting the most responsible approach that is best for the Democratic Party. If Hillary loses the nomination, and if she and Bill reallt care enough about the Democratic Party to want us to recapture the White House from the GOP (even if it isn't going to be their personal victory) then Hillary would be among the first to point out that Senator Obama should not agree to accept public funding. What she is saying now is clearly just political speak, hoping to gain some ground on her opponent. There is no "flip-flop".

Posted by: diksagev | February 24, 2008 11:48 PM | Report abuse

Hmm, I'm confused. Did Hillary Clinton criticize John Edwards for allowing unions to finance her ads and then take the financing herself later on? Had she done that she too would be accused of flip-flopping on this issue. We are learning quite a bit more about Mr. Obama these days, are we not?

Posted by: redhiker | February 24, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Here is a good article on the reality of the candidates

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=328070

Posted by: MAB2 | February 24, 2008 11:30 PM | Report abuse

Hillary you are the flip floper.

Why are you with Bill Clinton and all he has done is cheated on you. Now he is ruining your campaign. What does it take to get a Clue?

You marriage is not valid in our Country.

12 years with Gennifer and Sex case with the other young lady. Oval Offie romp with and intern.

What more do you need to get a clue. Oh..I'm sorry this is not about a marriage it about a Bisness with you two. You stayed married so you could run for President. A single woman can't run for President. Is you like that meaningless that you sacrifice it.

You guys just need to go back to Arkansas and live a quiet life.

Hey and why the "Same on You" Comment.

Are you his mother or his opponent. Just a thought.

Posted by: MsRita | February 24, 2008 10:43 PM | Report abuse

Does Clinton allow endorsement groups to but ad time for her? Would she allow unions supporting her campaign to set up phone banks on her behalf? Sure she would. Just look at the American Leadership Project, and you know she would in a heartbeat. This is a non-issue, and the only reason why this story is getting press is because Hillary is jumping up and down in place intsead of moving forward and trying to get her ground game going into March 4th. She's making negative speeches while Obama has people on the ground that are ORGANIZED. No wonder Clinton is getting beat!

Posted by: jrev7620042000 | February 24, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

.
A QUESTION FOR HILLARY:


WHY ISN'T CHELSEA FIGHTING IN IRAQ?

Why is Chelsea campaigning for her mother, going to Hawaii...if she supports her mother, why isn't she fighting in Iraq?

A SERIOUS QUESTION

People like the Clintons thinks it's fine to vote for wars, but always expect other parents' children to die in them.

WHY ISN'T CHELSEA IN IRAQ?????
.

Posted by: kevinlarmee | February 24, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

State of the Black Union 2008
Hillary Attending vs. Barack Obama not attending
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIapXSKKr2U

Posted by: dotheresearch | February 24, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Obama Flip Flops

1. Special Interests
Back in January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the Clinton and Edwards campaign as "special interest" money. He changed his tune as he went after union endorsements himself. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support.

2. Public Financing
Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. His spokesman now says that he never gave such a pledge, and Obama himself has attached several conditions, including regulating spending by outside groups.

3. The Cuba embargo
In January 2004, Obama said flatly that it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba," because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." Speaking to a Cuban-American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it was "an important inducement for change."

4. Illegal immigration
In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a televised debate on January 31, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."

5. Decriminalization of Marijuana
While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the October 30, 2007 presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.

Posted by: brigittepj | February 24, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

NEWS ALERT!!

Obama caught xeroxing Hillary's website!!!

Posted by: brigittepj | February 24, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

What do you expect? Obama is good in talking. Obama will do everything he can to promise the stars and the moon, but all of us know Obama has not proven any results. Our country need someone who has done result. We cannot afford another one who does not have the experience to lead our country and we the people are going to suffer again. Our economy is not in good standing. Hillary will put our economy back to nornal. Under the Clinton administration, our economy was stable and had surplu. Hillary will do it again. We dont'e need a talker but a doer like Hillary. Obama will keep talking but Obam has shown anything that he can prove to himself that he did something for the country..........oooops. maybe in Illinois. But Obama tries to undermine our intelligence as voters. We are not going to vote for race like what Obama said. Vote Obama because he is black. Sorry we are not buying it because we have pride, dignity and with principle. We love our country and we will protect it whatever it takes. We don't need someone just to satisfy self motives, self ambitions. It is very obvious. But fortunately, we are intelligent voters and we will vote for the best qualified experience candidate and that is Hillary. Viva America! viva Hillary!

Posted by: lianette_steele | February 24, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Why didn't President George Bush fight in a war if he loves going into one so much!

Posted by: wothe2 | February 24, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Why didn't President George Bush fight in a war if he loves going into one so much!

Posted by: wothe2 | February 24, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Why didn't President George Bush fight in a war if he loves going into one so much!

Posted by: wothe2 | February 24, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Why didn't President George Bush fight in a war if he loves going into one so much!

Posted by: wothe2 | February 24, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Why didn't President George Bush fight in a war if he loves going into one so much!

Posted by: wothe2 | February 24, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Why didn't President George Bush fight in a war if he loves going into one so much!

Posted by: wothe2 | February 24, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

State of the Black Union Event - On Hillary attending and Obama not attending
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIapXSKKr2U

Posted by: dotheresearch | February 24, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

I think the Hillary child rapist issue reflects on her deep seated obession with winning at all costs. We are seeing this again today with her desperate unfounded relenteless attacks on Barack. This is a serious defect in her character and should disqualify her as a candidate for president. IMHO.

Posted by: zb95 | February 24, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse


Hillary has attacked, Obama hasn't. Man of great words. The media's drawers were in a wad because he had taken the "high road" and had hamstrung himself. Remember Obamanites? Everybody was cordial up to MSNBC debate. Every reporter was complai ning because they wanted blood. Remember Obamanites? Come debate night, old high integrity interviewer Russart sicced and Old Edwards and Old Above the Fray Obama bit. Remember Obamanites? Question her honesty, integrity, and I can't remember all accusations, but their were more. Remember Obamanites? No Obama hasn't changed. He wasn't above the fray from the beginning. A false profit with words, but no substance. You know now why we call you Obamanites. Sheep following a false profit. You damn right I remember that night. It made me sick. Know why? I had real hope that the dems could go through the primaries without damage to each other. Don't blame Hillary. I'll never forget the look on her face that night. She never suspected they would do that.
She expected better and deserved better.
Remember Obamanites? Been wanting to get that of my chest for a while. Go back to your false profit, Obamanites. Dare you to question anything I said as untrue.

Posted by: bnw173 | February 24, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Before you open your mouth and let the word know that you don't understand the issue, before you spew out the Clinton talking points.

Research the issue before to show your ignorance!!!

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 24, 2008 06:06 PM

CitizenXX - do you know something we dont know and the Obama flip-flop on campaign financing? I would love to have someone change my mind about Obama so please do print the documentation to support your post.

Posted by: redhiker | February 24, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

The problem with Hillary defending the child rapist was that she tried to make the case that the girl wasn't really raped because she was supposedly attracted to older men. That is NOT an honest defense. There is a difference between Hillary presenting evidence for her clients innocence. But saying that the little girl somehow wanted to be raped is the problem.
Clinton should not be arguing that a rape victim really wants to be raped!!!

Posted by: zb95 | February 24, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Some things should never be used as a defense especially when it comes to a child victim.

For instance racism would never be acceptable as a defense for someone to say that a victim is "a person of color" and therefore deserved it...

Just like racism should not be an acceptable defense NEITHER SHOULD BE BLAMING A CHILD.

THAT IS SICK.

P.S.: this has nothing to do with college.

P.S.2: the teamsters are not latte drinkers.

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | February 24, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

ajtiger,

You obviously can't read. The Edwards money was found to have come from unions. Read the last line of MAB2's post.

Obama is doing exactly what he complained the Edwards campaign was doing. Taking support from unions. But of course, I've noticed throughout this campaign that anything goes as long as it favors him.

Posted by: brigittepj | February 24, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and I didn't mean to ignore the "child rapist" drivel here. For you supposedly highly-educated, latte-drinking, elitists, a public defender does not get to choose which cases are assigned to him/her. Once appointed by the court, the attorney is legally and ethically bound to do everything in their power to defend their client. That is what lawyers do. Or, didn't they teach you that in college?

Posted by: brigittepj | February 24, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Are all you Hillary-supporters ignorant to facts? If an Obama co-campaign manager resigned and started up a pro-Obama 527 group then Hillary would have a legitimate complaint. This is what Edwards 527 group did, a former campaign manager for Edwards started up and led the group. In fact, a pro-Hillary 527 group formed this month called American Leadership Project is fundraising ($100,000 donations?! give me a break!) with the purpose belittling Obama and promoting Hillary through Ohio TV ads. Maybe Hillary should concentrate on fiscal responsibility in her own campaign. I am so perturb, I think it's time for another Obama Campaign donation.

Obama in 08!

Posted by: ajtiger92 | February 24, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Thanks MAB2 for the truth.

This is just another red flag, (and there have been many), into the character of Barack Obama. I used to see posts from his supporters saying Hillary would do anything to win. Seems now the tables have turned. Barack is the gift that keeps on giving, if you like flip-floppers.

Posted by: brigittepj | February 24, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Here are the facts...

In Ohio: Obama Flip-Flops On Outside Political Spending
Change in Position Marks Second Flip Flop on Campaign Finance Issue in as Many Weeks
ARLINGTON, VA - While Barack Obama once decried outside expenditures as a "major loophole in campaign finance reform" and urged his primary opponents to do more than just "talk the talk," the Obama campaign today tacitly embraced a significant, last-minute outside expenditure effort being organized on his behalf by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW).

The UFCW intends to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in the state Ohio running pro-Obama advertising.

"The politics of hope is increasingly becoming the politics of hoping no one notices that Obama says one thing but does another," said Howard Wolfson, Communications Director for the Hillary Clinton campaign. "Obama's trying to have it both ways, decrying political loopholes two months ago and using them to his advantage now. That's hardly change you can believe in."

SEN. OBAMA ONCE BLASTED SEN. EDWARDS, SAYING 'YOU CAN'T JUST TALK THE TALK'

Sen. Obama blast John Edwards for criticizing 527s and then benefiting from their spending. "John yesterday said that he didn't believe in 527s - those are the independent groups that raise money without disclosure. Nobody knows who's giving the money or what's going on. He said, 'I don't believe in them because this is a major loophole in campaign finance reform laws, you have these outside groups helping out candidates and it is a way to get around campaign finance laws.'... So you can't say yesterday you don't believe in them and today you have three-quarters of a millions dollars being spent for you. You can't just talk the talk. The easiest thing in the world is to talk about change during election time" [New York Times, 12/22/07]

SEN. OBAMA CALLED FOR ISSUE CONSISTENCY, NOT POLITICAL CONVENIENCE

Sen. Obama: "Yesterday my understanding was that (Edwards) said he did not approve of 527s, these independent groups where there's no disclosure so you don't know who's funding them and how much is being spent... Part of what we need is some consistency when it comes to the positions we take, not just taking them when it's politically convenient." [Radio Iowa, 12/22/07]

SEN. OBAMA: OUTSIDE GROUPS HELP CANDIDATES EVADE THE LAW

Sen. Obama criticizes Edwards for using 'outside groups' as a way of 'getting around the campaign finance laws.' "You've got these outside groups that are helping out candidates and it's a way of getting around the campaign finance laws. So he said he's opposed to them - we found out today that there is an outside group spending $750,000." [MSNBC, 12/22/07]

OBAMA CAMP ONCE DECRIED "FLOOD OF MONEY" AS UNDERHANDED

Obama campaign decried 'big interests' that had poured a 'flood of Washington money' into Iowa in 'underhanded' efforts to support his rivals. "Sen. Barack Obama's campaign manager has spent the final days of the Iowa campaign railing against 'big interests' that have poured a 'flood of Washington money" into the state in 'underhanded' efforts to support his rivals. But more than three-quarters of that money has come from a pillar of the Democratic Party: labor unions." [Politico, 1/1/08]

Posted by: MAB2 | February 24, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Hillary "Ready on Day One" to defend child rapists.

Posted by: zb95 | February 24, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

This is the kind of stuff that is turning me off Barack. He also appears to be backing off his commitment to use public financing."

Posted by: redhiker | February 24, 2008 05:56 PM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

Before you open your mouth and let the word know that you don't understand the issue, before you spew out the Clinton talking points.

Research the issue before to show your ignorance!!!

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 24, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

sHillary's rant and sarcasticly lowbrow speech today in R.I. is just another ugly thing she has done. She will pull the party apart, destroy (or diminish greatly) the Clinton legacy, and seal the end of the Democratic Party.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 24, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Preaching hope, inspiration, change, with no substance, no specifics, no media challenge, and media fawning, Obama is instructive of how demagogues rise to power to inflict horrors on humanity.

Reporting that goes back ages ago has no relevance to the current campaign and is biased pro-Obama media undermining the Democratic nomination process, trying to swipe the nomination from Hillary Clinton by using dirty, smear tactic and the Bush technique of stealing the election. This smear tactic of left-wing media is just like the New York Times smear article on John McCain.

Posted by: crat3 | February 24, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

This is the kind of stuff that is turning me off Barack. He also appears to be backing off his commitment to use public financing. He's starting to change/temper some of his positions. For example, he previously said he was 100% willing, eager to sit down with our enemies cause we all need to come together, yada. Now he thinks it would require 'preparation' which interestingly maps directly into the 'preconditions' set forth by Hillary Clinton. He's led us to believe he had a humble upbringing when in fact he attended a presigious, expensive private school from 71-79 (Punahou). He's engaging in the same negative campaign tactics as do his opponents. We've been fooling ourselves, he's as political as they come.

Posted by: redhiker | February 24, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

.
A QUESTION FOR HILLARY:
WHY ISN'T CHELSEA FIGHTING IN IRAQ?
Why is Chelsea campaigning for her mother, going to Hawaii...if she supports her mother, why isn't she fighting in Iraq?
A SERIOUS QUESTION
People like the Clintons thinks it's fine to vote for wars, but always expect other parents' children to die in them.
WHY ISN'T CHELSEA IN IRAQ?????
.

Posted by: kevinlarmee | February 24, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Obama and his friends and those kind of people looks VERY RAPIST

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 24, 2008 05:48 PM

Laplunmele,
If you look the prison, all the RAPIST look like you and Obama

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 24, 2008 05:50 PM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Two of the most inane posts I have seen from the ignorant-and-proud sHillary crowd.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 24, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

So, why is he changing his mind now on this topic?

Much like he recently changed his mind on campaign financing.

Much like he says he against divisive politics, but attacks CLinton on every stump speech and sends out negative mailers.

the funny thing is that I wouldn;t care if he did any of this, except that he has gone on the record (proud and mighty) about each of these topics and then changes his mind. That is what I do not like.

Posted by: MAB2 | February 24, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Laplunmele,
If you look the prison, all the RAPIST look like you and Obama

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 24, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama and his friends and those kind of people looks VERY RAPIST

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 24, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Nobody grills a 12 year old girl like Hillary Rodham. Oh yea, I want that for president.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 24, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

GO HILLARY!!!

Posted by: JakeD | February 24, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

CLINTON DEFENDED A RAPIST IN HER PAST

BREAKING NEWS

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Clintons_client.html

Newsday's Glenn Thrush has that rarest of things: A new chapter to the Hillary's biography, and one that cuts sharply against a central part of her image: That she's spent her whole career fighting for children:

[T]here is a little-known episode Clinton doesn't mention in her standard campaign speech in which those two principles collided. In 1975, a 27-year-old Hillary Rodham, acting as a court-appointed attorney, attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old girl in mounting an aggressive defense for an indigent client accused of rape in Arkansas - using her child development background to help the defendant.

[snip]
[Clinton's] account leaves out a significant aspect of her defense strategy - attempting to impugn the credibility of the victim, according to aNewsday examination of court and investigative files and interviews with witnesses, law enforcement officials and the victim.

Rodham, records show, questioned the sixth grader's honesty and claimed she had made false accusations in the past. She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out "older men" like Taylor, according to a July 1975 affidavit signed "Hillary D. Rodham" in compact cursive.

Clinton's aides point out, accurately, that she was bound to present her indigent client the best defense available, which she did: He was able to plead down to a much lesser offense.

But read the whole story. Thrush reconstructs the crime, Clinton's role as a legal "bulldog," and her defense through court and police documents, and interviews a range of parties, including the alleged victim.

It's really an astonishingly good piece of reporting.

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | February 24, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company